[More rants from Jeff Mirus to get, as he says, more howls from critics]
Facing the People: Cardinal Burke’s Opinion
By Dr. Jeff Mirus | July 11, 2012
www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=985
I found Cardinal Raymond Burke’s lament over resistance to Summorum Pontificum [http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=14855] interesting, but for a reason you might not expect. Cardinal Burke definitely decried the lack of cooperation by bishops in some dioceses with the Pope’s desire that the extraordinary form of the Roman rite be more easily celebrated. But he also made a fascinating comment on the ordinary form.
He said that the ordinary form, in which the priest typically faces the people, can encourage a deeper appreciation of the “transparent devotion” with which priests should celebrate either form.
This is interesting because it is a point seldom noted by those who yearn for greater access to the extraordinary form. More often their arguments run the other way. The older “ad orientem” (the priest facing away from the congregation and toward the East) typically trumps the newer “versus populum” (the priest facing towards the congregation). For example, Cardinal Ratzinger, before he became pope, speculated that reverting to the “ad orientem” practice might instill a greater sense of sacrality in the ordinary form of the liturgy, providing an emphasis on the priest offering sacrifice to God on behalf of the people.
And of course it might have this effect. But Cardinal Burke sees an alternative value. Perhaps remembering the sloppy manner and even breakneck speed in which the Mass was frequently said in Latin (but certainly no stranger to the sometimes unfortunate emphasis on the personality of the celebrant in the ordinary form), Cardinal Burke suggests that facing the people can (and certainly ought to) be a way to more effectively communicate the reverence with which a priest says Mass.
I can, of course, hear the howls of protest from here, as people line up on various sides of this issue. But it seems to me that what this shows is that liturgical preferences are not necessarily tied to questions of stronger or weaker faith. It is difficult to predict who, in his heart of hearts, will really prefer one thing to another. Personal preferences vary widely, even among those equally committed to fidelity as Catholics.
Of course, Cardinal Burke also says he’d like to see the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar and the Last Gospel brought back, whereas I regard them as external to the Mass proper, historical accretions that were wisely deleted in the reform. More howls from some quarters, I know, but I treasure the ordinary form’s clarity about the parts of the Mass, its restrained emphasis on essentials—a feature of that noble simplicity which has always been more characteristic of the Latin rite than of the various Eastern rites.
The point is that we all have our preferences, and there are legitimate arguments on all sides of these questions. In this context, it is a wonderful thing to work peacefully for the improvement of the Sacred Liturgy—and an even more wonderful thing to follow serenely whatever rubrics are currently in force. As Our Lord saved us through obedience to the Father, so should we always worship in obedience to the Church.
We must never confuse spirituality with consolations: The spirituality of obedience to the Church, which infallibly unites us to Christ, should always supercede whatever emotional consolation we may gain by having things done our way.
I understand that Jeff’s work is posted here to demonstrate its idiocy, but don’t we have better ways to spend our time rather than reading the drivel of a self important, self aggrandizing fool that has no clue about the Faith?
I understand that Jeff’s work is posted here to demonstrate its idiocy, but don’t we have better ways to spend our time rather than reading the drivel of a self important, self aggrandizing fool that has no clue about the Faith?
I agree. If there is one “author” I absolutely cannot stand it’s him. The last line is amazing.
He’s obsessed with traditionalists and traditionalism, and misses no opportunity to concoct the most idiotic anti-apologetics the world wide web had ever seen.
I believe Jeff Mirus is a cousin of Chris Matthews.
I believe Jeff Mirus is a cousin of Chris Matthews.
It would stand to reason that genetics are at least partially to blame.
I know Jeff personally as his son recently married my wife’s niece who, in fact, recently gave birth to a son, Jeffery Arthur, and congratulations are in order to the new grandfather. I know Jeff to be a person who shares his views openly and ardently as he tries to make CatholicCulture.org the preeminent blog of its kind. So, although I respect his views on traditional matters, I decidedly disagree with any any attempt to portray the NO as better in any sense than the TLM. Whether you’re talking about mass versus populum, altar girls, communion in the hand, eucharistic ministers, lay persons in the sanctuary, or any other of the atrocious modifications present in the new mass, I vote NO! As for priests in the past having said the TLM irreverently, I can only say that was not my experience. Where I attend Mass now at Servants of the Holy Family in Colorado Springs, the TLM is extraordinarily well done, the rubrics followied to a “T” and it would put any NO liturgy to shame. I invite anyone to share my experience in that regard.
I too know Jeff. Although I have never met him in person, I was a strong and loyal supporter of his web site for many years, and my children were honored to have his wife as a teacher. I could go on.
We have been FORCED to choose between (current) authority and tradition (i.e., past authority). When that happens, there is a temptation to absolutize one or the other, and for it to become an ideology: which clearly seems to be the case with him.
Once I used the “T” word (“traditionalist”) with him the personal attacks began. The issue changed from WHAT is Catholic to WHO is Catholic.
We’ve all experienced liberals who do not understand anything we say: they have a template in their minds, and no words can affect it. Although Jeff is certainly no liberal, the phenomena was exactly the same nevertheless. He literally could not comprehend anything I was saying: and he ignored my actual words. I was not able to stop his personal attacks (to my family email address) until I told him that I was going to block his email. That is what ideology does to good people.
We have since communicated, and he did apologize: he is a good Christian. But he still cannot comprehend traditional Catholic arguments–even though the Pope has made some. Indeed, his site refused to post a quote from Cardinal Ratzinger! Even good Christians can blind themselves.
When was the last time Jeffy boy felt that watching a priest’s face while celebrating a novus ordo mass versus populum communicated the priest’s reverence for the sacrament?
I can imagine that watching Padre Pio’s face while celebrating Mass would have inspired devotion in those assisting. Watching Fr. Slaphappy’s face? Not so much.
I know Jeff personally…
Perhaps you can set up an interview. I have a few questions I’d like to ask.
- How on earth do you justify asking your readers for $31 grand per month to support a website like that?
- What is the $31 grand per month (not to mention ad revenue) being spent on? Hosting costs can’t be more than few thousand. Where’s the rest of the nearly $400,000 or more going?
- Why is your comment section strictly pay-to-play? Are Catholics who are willing or able pay you more articulate, holy and wise than the rest?
- Do you expect that any intelligent person believes that the reason “only current donors are allowed to Sound Off” is to “lighten our editing burden?”
- With the multitude of enormous problems facing Holy Church, why do you feel the need to obsessively take after traditionalists with these impossibly ASININE articles of yours?
- Do you think your degree in “Intellectual History” (whatever that is) qualifies you to constantly judge, scold and talk down to other Catholics?
- Patrick Madrid tried to make a living off of other Catholics in much the same way you are now. He (mostly) has gone away. When do you plan on joining him?
- What terrible thing have you done to cause God to give you Chris Matthews as a cousin?
I can help you a little with some of these questions.
If you are imagining that Jeff is rich, that certainly is not the case. He employs a staff to maintain the web site which has extensive information on many issues.
Yes, he is controlling the discussion on his web site. Originally, he had a real forum (many years ago), but appeared increasingly uncomfortable about others expressing opinions with which he did not agree. It is actually worse than you might imagine: EVEN DONORS have their comments blocked if they are traditionalists.
He reacts as though Holy Mother Church is being attacked whenever anybody suggests that Vatican II has short comings (unless that person is the Pope): yes, his is obsessed about that issue and about traditionalist. And he doesn’t understand the issues. Perhaps because he is a former college professor, he certainly does seem comfortable judging and talking down to others–primarily traditionalists.
His site has had financial problems. God does not honor fractiousness…nor dissembling even with good intentions. God is Truth. I do not expect his site to continue. He certainly has proven more than willing to alienate even his most loyal donors.
He is among the very best of men and of Christians, but with a very profound blindness. It is most unfortunate that his considerable talents are being misused to try to create division within the Church–a division which the Pope does not seem to want.
Stephen, if true ( and we only have your report, believable and sensible as it truly is, to go by at the moment ), your chracaterization is commendable for its fairness to Mr. Mirus ( I only afford “Doctor” to PhDs while performing formal academic duties ) and the insight it provides into the stance he takes.
Public renown… a time-honored bugaboo! Mixed in with a pinch of modernism, straight from the gaily yodelling barristas of Nova Roma, it can really pack a punch!
There has sprung up a cottage industry within the Steubenville/EWTN crowd in which PhDs, touting their personal “Doctorhood” for fun and profit – selling insider tips to gullible charismaniacs via CDs and books full of encomia for Santo Subito’s received nuggets of wisdom on ecumenism, TOB, etc., etc., etc. – have become the “face” of the Brave New Church to which they impart breath and meaining.
With the exception of complete frauds like the Black Sheep Dog and C. West, most of the folks are probably, progressivized as they are, not mendacious sorts at all.
And, as I think you agree, the real problem is the effect of their publicly proclaimed words on the real life thinking , and acts, of their viewers, listeners and readers.
So, that the whole crowd should turn to selling earth shoes or take up farming is not an unworthy suggestion.
Traditionalists may not be a whole lot of things. But we DO know what it was that our fathers, grandfathers, and great-grandfathers KNEW they were to believe , and to do, for salvation…. going all the way back to the Fathers of the Church.
Anyone who wants to mess with our minds or our public honor on that score, whether he’s wearing a designer mitre of just punching a keyboard, better come well armed.
gpmtrad, a thoughtful response!
It is this neoconservative over reaction which caused to to initially consider traditionalist claims, and then gradually come to agree with them.
I have a flip saying: I do not intend it to be taken literally, nor universally. It is: neoconservatives are liars; traditionalists are crazy.
Regarding non-traditionalist, you cannot continue to explain away the obvious wrong turns of the church without dissembling. One may not be lying per se, one may be self-deceiving, but self-deception at some point becomes almost indistinguishable from a lie. Actually, up to this point Jeff Muris might agree.
But it is also true that you cannot reasonably deny that there is a LINK between our problems and the ACTUAL WORDS of Vatican II: not without doing violence to the truth. And here, Jeff would just go nuts. Absolutely nuts.
As to traditionalists being crazy, Fr. McLucas once stated at a conference that traditionalists sometimes exhibit the symptoms of children of abusive mothers–because we are…Holy Mother Church has been abusive to traditionalists. (Still, I think he believes that when this occurs we should stop it.
Facing the horrible truth about the indifference to souls that has so often been showed is disorienting in a hierarchical Church. And heart breaking. A spiritual advisor that I once had said that there are stages of literary criticism: the last of which is understanding evil. Few ever get there, but those who do pay a terrible price. It is almost unbearable to face that our shepherds have too often lead us to fields of poison.
As I converted to Catholicism based upon truth, I must choose tradition and risk the resulting emotional turmoil.
Crazy like a fox.
Even an obstreperous Trad has more sense and magisterial acumen behind his ravings than any of the theologically baffleheaded, gobbedygook-saturated piffle cranked out by post-moderniist/deconstructionist “theologians” and “hierarchs” .
Thanks for bringing the info. Very insightful and interesting.
A little more about Jeff’s thinking: but the subject is a difficult one, because his thoughts on traditional matters are incoherent–as thy must be, given his positions (which are very different than his other writings).
For example, both George Weigle and Fr. Richard John Neuhaus have stated that Lateran V was a prudential failure–Fr. Neuhaus even going so far as saying that prudential failures are common among Councils (go down to “Whether the Council Failed” at “http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/06/the-bishops-in-charge-2 ). When I made that claim, Muris didn’t merely disagree, he indicated that such thoughts are incompatible with being Catholic. It didn’t matter to him that Weigle and Neuhaus agreed, although he did not explicitly attack their Catholicism for some reason.
Although Jeff agrees that a Council may not state every sentenced in absolutely the best possible way, he does not appear to to accept that any authentic Catholic could believe any meaningful mistakes were made even in the prudential realm at a Council. All Councils are prudential successes! (That would mean that the Protestant revolution was put back in the bottle, the schism with the East was healed, and that modernity was successfully engaged in the 1960′s) In order to sustain that absurd claim, he needs to act as though the goals of a Council cannot be known through its stated purpose, nor through the obvious need at the time. Rather, he appears to believe that only the Holy Ghost could know what the Holy Ghost wants to accomplish…which is ALWAYS accomplished some day…some how.
Like a liberal attacking the Catholic for being “anti-woman” or “homophobic”, Muris seems convinced that there could only be certain possible reason to be traditionalists: a rejection of authority; a rejection of hierarchy; and a belief in private judgement. And there is nothing that you can say to the contrary that he will even pay attention to…
He appears incapable of understanding that one could be a traditionalist precisely BECAUSE he believes in authority and discipline, and the modern Church does not. Or that current authority is not free to simply disregard past authority. Or that we are not talking about private JUDGEMENT, we are talking about basic reading comprehension. And so on.
Oddly, his approach involved private judgement: he did not cite even one Church document of any kind, and he was addressing me in a way foreign to the approaches of Vatican II, the last two Popes, and his own bishop (who is also mine). In the name of authority he made claims and allegations that none who are in authority make.
Oh I have another one:
- Did you know that when you Google “Jeff Mirus” that Angelqueen comes up as the 7th hit?
I think I might have a talk with Tom about us discontinuing giving you any further traffic.
I’ve considered it and almost agree with it–except for pieces that are sane (far and few between).
Sorry, Serv, but I’m not about to start a family feud with the in-laws over this. Let’s just say that Jeff and I profoundly disagree and leave it at that.
Oh heck brother, I wasn’t for real.
I wouldn’t put you in that position. It’s bad enough that there’s a remote chance that you might someday share a Thanksgiving table with Mirus and Chris Matthews AT THE SAME TIME.
Thanks Samuel for giving me the best laugh of the day.
I posted this late last evening ( Pacific Time ) and, since “doc” Mirus has managed to benefit from a great deal of publicity today – to the loss of attenton due what has been done to poor +Richard, the Lion Hearted in the smoke filled rooms over in balmy, humane and placid Econe – I thought I’d copy out what I posted on the “Faulty” thread and bring it over here. Just to balance things out, you see?
NEVER SEND A BOY…
Being an etude on conciliar apologetics, insufferably rendered
There once was some dude from some “schola”
Who couldn’t tell **** from Shinola
But carping atacks?
Shafting Trads in their backs?
Why, the man ’twas the Virus – Ebola!
Then, along came a bishop from Britain
Who found “doc” to be smitten:
” ‘Tis Assisian LUV,
And incurable, Guv!
The man oughtn’t preach to a kitten!”
So, “doc” – miffed – hissed through his PC,
His ardor increasingly greasy,
‘Til one day, on a forum
Some Catholics tore him
A new one, which turned him right queasy.
The tale may go on for some time, though,
As modernists’ wits tend to be slow.
Poor things, their scant diction
Is in fierce opposition
To what Churchmen of yore knew to be so.